* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/09/01 19:32 -0700]:
> No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built binary,
> same as Debian. We don't do that, so there is no issue for us[1]. See
> my other response in this thread for details.
>
> [1] As long as we take the binary off the live
* Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/09/01 16:31 -0400]:
> Maybe we should p.mask the versions that contain and un-redistributable
> mix of CDDL and GPL code.
Or add a big, blinking warning.
Regards, Lars
--
Lars Weiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +49-171-1963258
Gentoo Linux PowerPC: Strategi
On Friday 01 September 2006 20:26, Greg KH wrote:
> So we are just fine, one of the advantages of being a source-based
> distro :)
Um, rereading term three of the GPL, you're right of course. The question
remains how do we flag this. LICENSE="GPL-2 CDDL-Schily" in case of
cdrtools!? Yes, the lat
On Saturday 02 September 2006 00:01, Alec Warner wrote:
> and the tinderbox[1.5]
>
> [1.5] http://tinderbox.x86.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/app-cdr/
fixed
-mike
pgpaAQeW2iVd6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
>> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>>> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
>>> cdrtools-2.01.01
>>> alpha ebuilds from the tree.
>> I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert thi
Greg KH wrote:
>> I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this
>> change
>> due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread
>> spawned
>> from the 20060817 rawhide report [1].)
>
> No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built bi
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
> > cdrtools-2.01.01
> > alpha ebuilds from the tree.
>
> I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
> due t
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
> cdrtools-2.01.01
> alpha ebuilds from the tree.
I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread spawned
f
Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 14:47, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently
>> (homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expect a
>> rapid development there).
>
> Hey ruby's had their entire server down for 2
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:47, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently
> (homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expect a
> rapid development there).
Hey ruby's had their entire server down for 2 days! We sure can expect ra
Chris White wrote:
> Heck, dvdrtools is GPL,
> you could use that. As long as we have an alternative to point users to,
> good. THAT'S what I'm trying to say.
Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently
(homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expec
On Friday 01 September 2006 13:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you werent implying "remove the package" when you said "not give a user
> the option", then what else could you possibly be talking about
> -mike
Working on an the presented alternative, debburn, like I've been saying in
pretty much al
On Friday 01 September 2006 16:28, Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 13:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing
> > your ideals by removing the package is wrong
> > -mike
>
> Ok, where the hell did I even say to remove it.
On Fri, 2006-01-09 at 16:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 15:18, Chris White wrote:
> > On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
> > > No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
> > > and live cds. We do not have to do anything with
On Friday 01 September 2006 13:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing your
> ideals by removing the package is wrong
> -mike
Ok, where the hell did I even say to remove it. People that are saying that
just need to stop, wtf. I'd rather
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:18, Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
> > No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
> > and live cds. We do not have to do anything with the package in
> > portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtool
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > As discussed here?, the author of cdrtools, J?rg Schilling, violates the
> > GPL in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed
> > makefiles as well as linking m
Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 12:46, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
>> don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
>> do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of menta
On Friday 01 September 2006 12:46, Jakub Moc wrote:
> WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
> don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
> do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
> sanity).
What are t
Chris White wrote:
> We have an alternative stated [1]. I think we need to focus more on the
> problems of using the alternative, then dealing with what some consider to be
> a rather sketchy legal dispute.
>
> [1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn
WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respe
On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
> No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
> and live cds. We do not have to do anything with the package in
> portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that does the violating
> (and only if they then redistribut
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> As discussed here?, the author of cdrtools, J?rg Schilling, violates the GPL
> in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed makefiles as
> well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL lately. De
On Friday 01 September 2006 16:42, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Actually the GPL specifically states that build scripts are part of the
> source code explicitly.
And requires you to make it available, but it doesn't strictly require its
license terms to be the same. Maybe I'm confused a bit, but for wh
On Friday 01 September 2006 16:31, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be
> > licensed under the GPL.
>
> It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual code. I think it
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:31:51 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
| > The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be
| > licensed under the GPL.
|
| It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the ac
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be licensed
> under the GPL.
It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual code. I think it's one of
the gray points.
Still it does not make any sense to ship the make
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:08, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I'm the first to not like Schilling's ways, but...
>
> On Friday 01 September 2006 14:44, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > building GPL software with CDDL licensed
> > makefiles
>
> Can't see how this is pertinent, I can build BSD licen
I'm the first to not like Schilling's ways, but...
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:44, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> building GPL software with CDDL licensed
> makefiles
Can't see how this is pertinent, I can build BSD licensed software with
autoconf that is GPL, and use GCC to compile..
> as well as
As discussed here¹, the author of cdrtools, Jörg Schilling, violates the GPL
in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed makefiles as
well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL lately. Debian
seems to fork² cdrtools therefore.
Imho we have to remove the p
29 matches
Mail list logo
